The Bombay High Court listed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the functioning of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on August 1, 2023 at 2.30 p.m. under the caption “For Directions” to enable the counsel for the Union of India to inform about the progress regarding issuance of appointment orders.

Representation made by the Advocates Association of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad is placed before from which the Court noted that the Division Bench of the Tribunal at Aurangabad is not functioning since 28 June 2023 and there are several urgent matters for admission and hearing. The counsel for the Registry of the Tribunal states that even at Nagpur, the Division Bench is not functioning.

The response of the Tribunal is also placed on record, which states that process for appointment is going on. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the Registry of the Tribunal. It is stated that, at present, there is one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member at Aurangabad and the Administrative Member is due to superannuate on 11 August 2023 and the Judicial Member is superannuated on 28 June 2023 and, therefore, effectively from 11 August 2023 there will be only Vice-Chairman (Judicial) in the Tribunal at Aurangabad. The affidavit also mentions the process of filling up of the vacancies.

When the matter was called out in the morning session, it was kept back for the learned Advocate General to assist the Court. The Advocate General has appeared and has assisted the Court.

A communication dated 19 July 2023 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department to the Joint Secretary (AT), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi is placed on record, whereby the request is made to issue appointment orders to the two selected candidates as regard Member (Administrative), Nagpur and Member (Administrative), Aurangabad. The counsel representing the Registry of the Tribunal informs that as regard two Judicial Members, recommendation is already sent to the Government of India in June 2023.

Considering the importance of the Tribunal and the situation resulting from non-filling of the vacancies which is extremely prejudicial to the litigants, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, would look into the issue on priority basis and will consider taking necessary steps at the earliest, the Court directed.

The counsel for the Union of India states that these observations and sentiments expressed by this Court would be conveyed to the Joint Secretary, Government of India at the earliest.

The counsel for the Petitioners states that this process may take some time and in the meanwhile, though the Tribunal at Mumbai is taking up urgent matters, facility be provided for virtual hearing and e-filing so that the Advocates need not come to Mumbai physically. On this aspect, the Chairperson of the Tribunal would be in better position to take a decision depending on the availability of the infrastructure and feasibility.

“If there is a shortage of infrastructure because of which the virtual hearing cannot be provided, we have no doubt that the Chairperson of the Tribunal would make necessary request to the State Government and further we have no doubt that the State Government will extend all possible assistance”, observed the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif S. Doctor.

The Bombay High Court recently issued notice on a PIL filed to air the grievances of several employees whose matters are pending before the Nagpur Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for many years and no relief is coming their way, in view of indifference of the respondent State of Maharashtra in filling up both the vacancies of judicial members.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate Rahul Vijay Shiralkar, who is an esteemed member of the Bar, on behalf of such aggrieved employees. The petitioner stated there are two vacancies of judicial members at Nagpur and both of them have remained unfilled for the last two years.

It is also the grievance of the petitioner that sometimes the vacancies are filled up so belatedly that the judicial member who is appointed hardly gets any tenure to perform his duty in office.

The further grievance of the petitioner is that the office of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur is having shortage of staff members, lack of video conferencing facilities and inadequate infrastructural facilities at this Bench.

To illustrate the point, petitioner submitted  that there are three posts of judicial members and only one stenographer has been provided. The petitioner further pointed out that there are in all 39 sanctioned posts of administrative staff and judicial members, of which 15 posts are lying vacant.

The Nagpur bench comprised of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil L. Pansare having considered the submissions issued notice to the respondents for final disposal at admission stage.